alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 5190 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 5190

 To prohibit the procurement of certain batteries by the Department of 
                                 State.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2024

Mr. Scott of South Carolina (for himself and Mr. Rubio) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                           Foreign Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the procurement of certain batteries by the Department of 
                                 State.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Blocking Bad Batteries Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN 
              BATTERIES.

    (a) Limitation.--Beginning on October 1, 2027, none of the funds 
appropriated or otherwise made available for the Department of State 
may be obligated or expended to procure a battery produced by an entity 
specified in subsection (b).
    (b) Entities Specified.--The entities specified in this subsection 
are the following:
            (1) Contemporary Amperex Technology Company, Limited (also 
        known as ``CATL'').
            (2) BYD Company, Limited.
            (3) Envision Energy, Limited.
            (4) EVE Energy Company, Limited.
            (5) Gotion High tech Company, Limited.
            (6) Hithium Energy Storage Technology company, Limited.
            (7) Any successor to an entity specified in paragraphs (1) 
        through (6).
    (c) Treatment of Production.--For purposes of this section, a 
battery shall be treated as produced by an entity specified in 
subsection (b) if that entity--
            (1) assembles or manufactures the final product; or
            (2) creates or otherwise provides a majority of the 
        components used in the battery.
    (d) National Interest Waiver.--The Secretary of State may waive the 
limitation under subsection (a) if the Secretary submits to the 
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives--
            (1) a written determination that the waiver is important to 
        the national interests of the United States; and
            (2) a detailed explanation of how such waiver is important 
        to those interests.
                                 <all>
```
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS45220 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
# EUR-Lex - 12004V099 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V099

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART II — THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE UNION - TITLE V — CITIZENS' RIGHTS - Article II-99 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0050 - 0050 *

Article II-99

Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament

1. Every citizen of the Union has the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in which he or she resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State.

2. Members of the European Parliament shall be elected by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot.

--------------------------------------------------
#### § 530.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to establish procedures which supplement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations and provide for the implementation of those provisions identified in § 1507.3(b) of the regulations which are applicable to the activities of the Commission in light of its statutory functions and responsibilities.
# EUR-Lex - 12004V158 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V158

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER I — INTERNAL MARKET - Section 4 — Capital and payments - Article III-158 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0067 - 0067 *

Article III-158

1. Article III-156 shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States:

(a) to apply the relevant provisions of their tax law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where their capital is invested;

(b) to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of national provisions laid down by law or regulation, in particular in the field of taxation and the prudential supervision of financial institutions, or to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative or statistical information, or to take measures which are justified on grounds of public policy or public security.

2. This Section shall be without prejudice to the applicability of restrictions on the right of establishment which are compatible with the Constitution.

3. The measures and procedures referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free movement of capital and payments as defined in Article III-156.

4. In the absence of a European law or framework law provided for in Article III-157(3), the Commission or, in the absence of a European decision of the Commission within three months from the request of the Member State concerned, the Council, may adopt a European decision stating that restrictive tax measures adopted by a Member State concerning one or more third countries are to be considered compatible with the Constitution insofar as they are justified by one of the objectives of the Union and compatible with the proper functioning of the internal market. The Council shall act unanimously on application by a Member State.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 11997E045 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 11997E045

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Amsterdam consolidated version) - Part Three: Community policies - Title III: Free movement of persons, services and capital - Chapter 2: Right of establishment - Article 45 - Article 55 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 55 - EEC Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0196 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0022 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Amsterdam consolidated version)

Article 45

The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply, so far as any given Member State is concerned, to activities which in that State are connected, even occasionally, with the exercise of official authority.

The Council may, acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, rule that the provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to certain activities.
# EUR-Lex - 12004V131 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V131

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE III — INTERNAL POLICIES AND ACTION - CHAPTER I — INTERNAL MARKET - Section 1 — Establishment and functioning of the Internal Market - Article III-131 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0058 - 0058 *

Article III-131

Member States shall consult each other with a view to taking together the steps needed to prevent the functioning of the internal market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in the event of serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law and order, in the event of war, serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out obligations it has accepted for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security.

--------------------------------------------------
# EUR-Lex - 12002E207 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 12002E207

**Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version) - Part Five: Institutions of the Community - Title I: Provisions governing the institutions - Chapter 1: The institutions - Section 2: The Council - Article 207 - Article 151 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version) - Article 151 - EEC Treaty **

*
Official Journal C 325 , 24/12/2002 P. 0118 - 0119 Official Journal C 340 , 10/11/1997 P. 0265 - Consolidated version Official Journal C 224 , 31/08/1992 P. 0058 - Consolidated version (EEC Treaty - no official publication available) *

Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)

Part Five: Institutions of the Community

Title I: Provisions governing the institutions

Chapter 1: The institutions

Section 2: The Council

Article 207

Article 151 - EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)

Article 151 - EEC Treaty

Article 207

1. A committee consisting of the Permanent Representatives of the Member States shall be responsible for preparing the work of the Council and for carrying out the tasks assigned to it by the Council. The Committee may adopt procedural decisions in cases provided for in the Council's Rules of Procedure.

2. The Council shall be assisted by a General Secretariat, under the responsibility of a Secretary-General, High Representative for the common foreign and security policy, who shall be assisted by a Deputy Secretary-General responsible for the running of the General Secretariat. The Secretary-General and the Deputy Secretary-General shall be appointed by the Council acting by a qualified majority.

The Council shall decide on the organisation of the General Secretariat.

3. The Council shall adopt its Rules of Procedure.

For the purpose of applying Article 255(3), the Council shall elaborate in these Rules the conditions under which the public shall have access to Council documents. For the purpose of this paragraph, the Council shall define the cases in which it is to be regarded as acting in its legislative capacity, with a view to allowing greater access to documents in those cases, while at the same time preserving the effectiveness of its decision-making process. In any event, when the Council acts in its legislative capacity, the results of votes and explanations of vote as well as statements in the minutes shall be made public.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

In re: 

Matthew A Vela

Debtor(s)

Case No. 16 B 28156

CHAPTER 13 STANDING TRUSTEE’S FINAL REPORT AND ACCOUNT

Marilyn O. Marshall, chapter 13 trustee, submits the following Final Report and Account 

of the administration of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1302(b)(1). The trustee declares as 

follows:

1) The case was filed on 08/31/2016.

2) The plan was confirmed on NA .

3) The plan was modified by order after confirmation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1329 on

NA .

4) The trustee filed action to remedy default by the debtor in performance under the plan 

on NA .

5) The case was Dismissed on 10/06/2016.

6) Number of months from filing to last payment: 0.

7) Number of months case was pending: 3.

8) Total value of assets abandoned by court order: NA .

9) Total value of assets exempted: NA .

10) Amount of unsecured claims discharged without payment: $0.00.

11) All checks distributed by the trustee relating to this case have cleared the bank.

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 16-28156 Doc 11 Filed 12/14/16 Entered 12/14/16 15:39:16 Desc Page 1

 of 3
Receipts:

Total paid by or on behalf of the debtor $0.00

Less amount refunded to debtor $0.00

NET RECEIPTS: $0.00

Expenses of Administration:

Attorney’s Fees Paid Through the Plan $0.00

Court Costs $0.00

Trustee Expenses & Compensation $0.00

Other $0.00

TOTAL EXPENSES OF ADMINISTRATION: $0.00

Attorney fees paid and disclosed by debtor: $0.00

Scheduled Creditors:

Creditor

Name Class

Claim

Scheduled

Claim

Asserted

Claim

Allowed

Int.

Paid

Principal

Paid

Summary of Disbursements to Creditors:

Secured Payments:

Mortgage Ongoing

Mortgage Arrearage

Debt Secured by Vehicle

All Other Secured

TOTAL SECURED:

Priority Unsecured Payments:

Domestic Support Arrearage

Domestic Support Ongoing

All Other Priority

TOTAL PRIORITY:

GENERAL UNSECURED PAYMENTS:

Claim

Allowed

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Principal

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

Interest

Paid

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 16-28156 Doc 11 Filed 12/14/16 Entered 12/14/16 15:39:16 Desc Page 2

 of 3
Disbursements:

Expenses of Administration $0.00

Disbursements to Creditors $0.00

TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS : $0.00

12) The trustee certifies that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 5009, 

the estate has been fully administered, the foregoing summary is true and complete, and all 

administrative matters for which the trustee is responsible have been completed. The trustee 

requests a final decree be entered that discharges the trustee and grants such other relief as may 

be just and proper.

Dated: 12/14/2016

STATEMENT: This Unified Form is associated with an open bankruptcy case, therefore, Paperwork Reduction 

Act exemption 5 C.F.R. § 1320.4(a)(2) applies.

By:/s/ Marilyn O. Marshall

Trustee

UST Form 101-13-FR-S (9/1/2009)

Case 16-28156 Doc 11 Filed 12/14/16 Entered 12/14/16 15:39:16 Desc Page 3

 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5238 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5238

 To authorize the vessel R/V ROSS SEAL to be documented under the laws 
              of a foreign country during a 3-year period.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

              October 7 (legislative day, October 6), 1994

  Mr. Brooks introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize the vessel R/V ROSS SEAL to be documented under the laws 
              of a foreign country during a 3-year period.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION FOR R/V ROSS SEAL TO BE DOCUMENTED UNDER THE 
              LAWS OF A FOREIGN COUNTRY.

    Notwithstanding any other law--
            (1) during the period beginning March 1, 1995, and ending 
        March 1, 1998, the vessel R/V ROSS SEAL may be documented under 
        the laws of a foreign country;
            (2) that vessel shall not be prohibited from or otherwise 
        ineligible to engage in coastwise trade, by reason of having 
        been documented under the laws of a foreign country in that 
        period; and
            (3) the Secretary of Transportation may not, by reason of 
        that vessel having been documented under the laws of a foreign 
        country in the period, withhold documentation for that vessel 
        under chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



Exhibit 31.1 Certification Pursuant To
Rule 13a-14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 I, Gordon A. Paris, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Hollinger International Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations
and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared; (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls
and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth fiscal quarter of the period covered
by this report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to




---



##### 



adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; and (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting. Date:
January 18, 2005 /s/ Gordon A. ParisName:
    Gordon A. ParisTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer
1

The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, Chief Judge, United

States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas,

adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Jerry W.

Cavaneau, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

___________

No. 94-3732

___________

Willie Houston, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Larry Norris, Acting Director, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Arkansas Department of * [UNPUBLISHED]

Correction, *

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: January 7, 1996 

 Filed: February 13, 1996 ___________

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. ___________

PER CURIAM.

In 1988, a jury found Willie Houston guilty of first degree

murder. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed his conviction,

Houston v. State, 771 S.W.2d 16 (Ark. 1989), and denied

postconviction relief, Houston v. State, No. CR 88-194 (Ark. Dec.

10, 1990) (unpublished per curiam). In 1992, Houston filed this

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, asserting that his trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to move for a directed verdict at the close

of the case and to object to jury instructions; the trial court

should have granted his motion to suppress evidence allegedly

seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and his conviction was

based on insufficient evidence. The district court1 dismissed the
of Arkansas.

-2-

petition, and Houston appeals.

We conclude the district court correctly determined Houston's

ineffective-assistance claims were procedurally barred, and Houston

did not establish cause and prejudice to excuse his default. See

Flieger v. Delo, 16 F.3d 878, 884-85 (8th Cir.), cert. denied,

115 S. Ct. 355 (1994); Smith v. Murray, 477 U.S. 527, 535-36

(1986); Johnson v. Lockhart, 944 F.2d 388, 390 (8th Cir. 1991).

The district court also properly rejected Houston's Fourth

Amendment claim, see Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 494 (1976);

Willett v. Lockhart, 37 F.3d 1265, 1268-69 (8th Cir. 1994) (en

banc), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 1432 (1995), as well as his

sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, see Becker v. Lockhart, 971 F.2d

172, 175 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 98 (1993); Ark.

Code Ann. §§ 5-10-102(a)(2), 5-2-202(1); Furr v. State, 822 S.W.2d

380, 381 (Ark. 1992). 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-4469

___________________________

Kevin L. Wolfe

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: September 26, 2017

Filed: September 29, 2017

[Unpublished]

____________

Before GRUENDER, BENTON, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Kevin L. Wolfe appeals the district court’s order upholding the denial of 1

disability insurance benefits. This court reviews de novo the district court’s decision

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa, now retired.
affirming the denial of benefits, examining whether the administrative law judge’s

(ALJ) decision issupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Igo

v. Colvin, 839 F.3d 724, 728 (8th Cir. 2016). We find no merit to Wolfe’s challenges

to the ALJ’s credibility findings. See Julin v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 1082, 1086 (8th Cir.

2016) (noting that credibility findings are ALJ’s province, and, so long as they are

supported by “good reasons and substantial evidence,” this court will defer to those

findings (quoting Guilliams v. Barnhart, 393 F.3d 798, 801 (8th Cir. 2005))). We

also find no merit to Wolfe’s challenges to the ALJ’s determination of his mental

residual functional capacity (RFC), because the ALJ’s reasons for discounting the

opinion of Wolfe’s treating psychiatrist were valid, see Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d

892, 897–99 (8th Cir. 2011) (holding that treating physician’s opinion does not

automatically control, asrecord must be evaluated as whole; it is permissible for ALJ

to discount treating physician’s opinion that is inconsistent with his own notes); and

the mental RFC determination was consistent with the medical evidence, see Boyd

v. Colvin, 831 F.3d 1015, 1020 (8th Cir. 2016) (explaining that “it is the

responsibility of the ALJ, and not a physician, to determine a claimant’s RFC” based

on all relevant evidence: medical records, observations of treating physicians and

others, and claimant’s own description of his limitations); Hensley v. Colvin, 829

F.3d 926, 931–32 (8th Cir. 2016) (stating that the claimant bears the burden of

demonstrating RFC, which must be supported by some medical evidence, but there

is no requirement that finding be supported by specific medical opinion). The

judgment of the district court is affirmed. 

______________________________

-2-